| CODE No | NPDD0800 319 | P.FILE No. | 474 | |---------|--------------|------------|-----| | OS MAP No. | 2268 | GRID REF | 2205 6885 | | APPLICANT | The Board of Governors of Lady Manners Shutts Lane BAKEWELL Derbyshire | c/o AGENT | Peter Knowles Garden House Fountain Square Youlgrave BAKEWELL Derbyshire | | POSTCODE | DE45 1JA | POSTCODE | DE45 1UR | | Tel No. | | Tel No. | 01629 636362 | | APPL TYPE | Listed Building Consent | PROPOSAL | Erection of 2 dwellings and extension to Honeypot Cottage | | LOCATION | Walled Garden & Honeypot Cottage, Castle Hill | | PARISH | Bakewell | | ADVERTISEMENT DATE | 25 Aug 2000 | LAST ADVERT DATE | 15 Sep 2000 | | CONSTRAINTS | Adjacent to TPO. Within curtilage of listed buildings, Conservation Area | | CONSULTATIONS | Bakewell Town Council Derbyshire Dales District Council Derbyshire County Council (Highways) Built Environment | DATE SENT | 17 Aug 2000 17 Aug 2000 17 Aug 2000 17 Aug 2000 | | | | DATE REPLY | 17 Aug 2000 17 Aug 2000 17 Aug 2000 17 Aug 2000 | | COMMITTEE | Bakewell | | DECISION | Date | | APPEAL | Date lodged | | Decision | Date | ENFORCEMENT RECORD CARD

This card should be filed immediately in front of the decision notice which in turn should be in front of a set of approved plans.

The following amendments have been formally agreed by the planning officer since the issue of the decision notice:

| DATE | DETAILS | |------|---------| | | |

The following conditions have been formally complied with since the issue of the decision notice:

| DATE | COND.NO. | DETAILS | |------|----------|---------| | | | |

# Site Visit Record

| DATE | INSPECTION | PROGRESS | DEPARTURES | |------|------------|----------|------------| | | | | |

## Key Dates to Note

| DATE | DETAILS | |------|---------| | | |

## Key Factors to Watch

| DETAILS | |---------| | | To: The Board of Governors of Lady Manners\
c/o Peter Knowles\
Garden House\
Fountain Square\
Youlgrave\
Bakewell\
Derbyshire DE45 1UR

PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS & CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990.\
PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) REGULATIONS 1990.

In pursuance of the powers vested in the Peak District National Park Authority under the above Acts and Regulations and with reference to your application for listed building consent, details of which are as follows:

Office Code No. NP/DDD/0800/319\
Date received: 15 August 2000\
Proposal: Erection of 2 dwellings and extension to Honeypot Cottage\
Location: Walled Garden and Honeypot Cottage, Castle Hill\
Parish: Bakewell

THE DECISION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT CONSENT FOR THE PROPOSED WORKS in the manner described on the application and shown on the accompanying plans and drawings is

REFUSED for the following reasons:

Honeypot Cottage and the garden wall are curtilage structures which are associated with the Boarding House, a Grade II listed building. If the site had to be developed then the proposals are acceptable. However these curtilage structures and their setting are better conserved through no development. As the primary duty of the National Park Authority is conservation and enhancement it is appropriate to refuse unnecessary, undesirable changes to the character of listed curtilage features. (GS1, C9 and LC6).

Relevant Structure Plan policies include GS1, C9. Relevant Local Plan (Provisional Adopted Version) policies include LC4, LC6.

Signed

Authorised Officer of the Authority

Date 5 JAN 2001

Attention is called to notes overleaf STATEMENT OF APPLICANT'S RIGHTS ARISING FROM THE REFUSAL OF LISTED BUILDING CONSENT OR FROM THE GRANT OF CONSENT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the local planning authority to refuse listed building consent for the proposed works, or to grant consent subject to conditions he may appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 within 6 months of the date of this notice. Appeals must be made on a form which is obtainable from the Department of the Environment, Tollgate House, Houlton Street, Bristol, BS2 9DJ. The Secretary of State has power to allow a longer period for the giving of a notice of appeal but he will not normally be prepared to exercise this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.

2. If listed building consent is refused, or granted subject to conditions, whether by the local planning authority or by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any works which have been or would be permitted, he may serve on the council of the district in which the land is situated a listed building purchase notice requiring that council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

3. In certain circumstances, a claim may be made against the local planning authority for compensation, where permission is refused or granted subject to conditions by the Secretary of State on appeal or on a reference of the application to him. The circumstances in which such compensation is payable are set out in Section 28 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Where consent is given by the planning authority to the demolition of a listed building, attention is drawn to Section 8 of the Act, the effect of which is that demolition may not be undertaken (despite the terms of the consent granted by the planning authority) until notice of the proposal has been given to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 2HE, and the Commission subsequently have either been given reasonable access to the building for at least one month following the grant of consent, or have stated that they have completed their record of the building or that they do not wish to record it. It was proposed and seconded that consideration of the item be deferred pending a site visit. This was put to the vote and fell.

An amendment for approval subject to conditions was proposed and seconded. This was put to the vote. Members were equally divided, the Chair using his casting vote, voted in favour and the amendment was carried.

The Assistant National Park Officer, Head of Planning informed the Committee that as the approval contravened policy it would have to be referred to Policy Committee.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement ensuring that funds from the sale of the site are spent on improvements to the boarders' accommodation, access and landscaping, the application be recommended to the Policy Committee for APPROVAL subject to conditions covering access, detailed design, landscaping and withdrawal of permitted development rights.

5. LISTED BUILDING CONSENT – ERECTION OF 2 DWELLINGS AND EXTENSION TO HONEYPOT COTTAGE, WALLED GARDEN & HONEYPOT COTTAGE, CASTLE HILL, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/0800/319, P.474, 15.8.00, 2205 8885/BT)

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved subject to conditions. This was put to the vote. Members were equally divided, the Chair using his casting vote, voted in favour and the amendment was carried.

The Assistant National Park Officer, Head of Planning informed the Committee that as the approval of the planning application contravened policy it would have to be referred to Policy Committee. If the planning application is approved then the application for Listed Building Consent can be approved.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the prior approval of the planning application NP/DDD/0800/328 the application be APPROVED subject to conditions covering detailed design and landscaping.

6. FULL APPLICATION – ERECTION OF INDUSTRIAL UNIT, UNIT 4, STATION ROAD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/0800/334, P.1911, 21.8.00, 2223 6905/BT)

The Assistant National Park Officer, Head of Planning requested that consideration of this item be deferred pending further consultation.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of this item be deferred pending further consultation.

The meeting adjourned at 12.50 pm for a half-hour break

The meeting reconvened at 1.20 pm.

Cllrs Mrs Bevan and Doughty did not attend the re-convened meeting.

7. FULL APPLICATION – ERECTION OF 8 FLATS ON SITE OF FORMER BLOCK B AND PROVISION OF BASEMENT LEVEL CAR PARK, CRESSBROOK MILL, CRESSBROOK, LITTON (NP/DDD/0900/364, P.10951, 12.9.00, 1730 7267/BT)

The Planning Officer reported that the District Council had no objections and that the Highway Authority had no objection in principle, but would submit more detailed responses in due course.

The Chair reported that an Authority Member wished to speak on this item. MINUTES

AGENDA ITEM No. 2

Meeting: Policy Committee Date: 10.00 am 22 December 2000 Venue: Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire Chair: Mr A Brown

Present: Mrs A Ashe, Clr J A Bull, Mr J T Bunting, Clr G M Doughty, Mr J C Fears, Clr Mrs H M Gaddum, Mr R Greatorex, Mr A D Hams, Mr K Jackson, Mr W W Kirkham, Clr Mrs E D M Lovatt, Mrs S Prince, Clr J M T Sutcliffe, Clr D B Taylor, Clr Mrs A Western.

Apologies for absence: Clr Mrs B Allonby, Clr T Bristowe, Clr Mrs G M Francis, Clr D Mole,

REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT NATIONAL PARK OFFICER – HEAD OF PLANNING

Clr J A Bull and Clr A Western declared a non-pecuniary interest in the next item and Mr R Greatorex declared a pecuniary interest. These Members withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the application.

88/00 FULL APPLICATION – ERECTION OF 2 DWELLINGS AND EXTENSION TO HONEYPOT COTTAGE, WALLED GARDEN AND HONEYPOT COTTAGE, CASTLE HILL, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/0800/328, P.474, 21.8.00, 2205 6885/BT)

The Committee were requested to consider this application which had been recommended for approval by Planning Control Committee. The decision had to be made by the Policy Committee as approval would be a departure from agreed policies.

A supplementary report was tabled which commented in detail on a letter of objection from Mr W W Forrester and a letter of support from Clr J Youatt. The Committee were advised that the Department of the Environment had issued an Article 14 Direction which prevented the Authority issuing a planning consent. The article did not prevent consideration and refusal of the application.

Mr J Mills Chairman of the Governors of Lady Manners School (the applicants) addressed the meeting speaking in favour of the granting of the application. He explained that the development was necessary to provide finance for the repair and improvement of the Boarding House which was a listed building.

Mr W Forrester of Burre Close Bakewell addressed the meeting requesting the Committee to refuse the application. He cited the relevant policies stating that the application had no basis in planning.

Clr Mrs C Crowther addressed the meeting speaking in favour of granting the application emphasising the importance of the school and Boarding House in the community and the need to carry out repairs and improvements to retain its viability.

A motion to approve the application as recommended by the Planning Control Committee was moved and seconded. Clr Doughty requested a recorded vote on this motion. This was supported by 4 other Members in accordance with Standing Orders. On being put to the vote this motion was lost. The voting was recorded as follows:

| For the Motion | Against the Motion | |-------------------------|-----------------------------| | Mrs A Ashe | Mr A Brown | | Mr J T Bunting | Clr G M Doughty | | Mr J C Feams | Mr A D Hams | | Clr Mrs H M Gaddum | Mr K Jackson | | Mr W W Kirkham | Mrs S Prince | | Clr Mrs E D M Lovatt | Clr J M T Sutcliffe | | | Clr D B Taylor |

A motion to refused the application was moved and seconded.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED on the following grounds:

1. Contrary to housing policy.
2. Undesirable changes to the character of listed curtilage features and the Bakewell Conservation Area.

OUTLINE APPLICATION – CONVERSION OF FORMER WATER TREATMENT WORKS TO FORM 19 APARTMENTS, THE LADYBOWER CENTRE, ASHOPTON ROAD, YORKSHIRE BRIDGE, BAMFORD NP/HPK/0800/119, P.6479, 248.00, 2016 8528/JRS

The Committee were requested to consider this application which had been recommended for approval by Planning Control Committee. The decision had to be made by the Policy Committee as approval would be a departure from agreed policies.

Mr A Etchells Agent for the applicants addressed the meeting speaking in favour of approval of the application.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions covering the following:

1. Submission of reserved matters, conversion to be within existing building, subject to omission of conservatory.
2. Withdrawal of permitted development rights.
3. Highway conditions.
4. Environment Agency conditions.

REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT NATIONAL PARK OFFICER – SECRETARY AND SOLICITOR

MEMBER TRAINING WORKING GROUP: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER (A.1144/EWJ)

The Committee were requested to approve the appointment of Mr Hams to the National Park Authorities Member Training Working Group, with attendance at meetings as an approved duty.

RESOLVED:

That the appointment of Mr Hams to the National Park Authorities Member Training Working Group be approved, with attendance at meetings in 2001 being an approved duty for the purposes of the payment of attendance, travelling and subsistence allowances.

The Meeting finished at 10.50 am. MINUTES

Meeting: Planning Control Committee Date: 11.20 am, Friday, 24 November 2000 Venue: Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire Chair: Clr J A Bull

Present: Mr G R Adams, Clr Mrs J Bevan, Clr T Bristowe, Mr A Brown, Clr D W Cotterill, Mrs L Crowe, Clr Mrs C M N Crowther, Mrs A P Dale, Clr S M Doughty, Clr Mrs H M Gaddum, Mr R D Greatorex, Mr A Hams, Ms B Hilditch, Clr D Mole, Clr Mrs A Mone, Mrs S Prince, Clr J M T Sutcliffe, Clr Mrs A Western.

Apologies for Absence: Clr W Burrows, Mrs T Heathcote, Mrs K M Potter.

417/00 SPECIAL POLICY COMMITTEE

The Chair reported that the Special Policy Committee meeting arranged for 1 December 2000 would now be held on 22 December 2000 at 10.00 am.

418/00 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2000 were approved as a correct record subject to the following amendments:

MINUTE 379/00

5. LISTED BUILDING CONSENT – ERECTION OF 2 DWELLINGS AND EXTENSION TO HONEYPOT COTTAGE, WALLED GARDEN & HONEYPOT COTTAGE, CASTLE HILL, BAKEWELL (NP/DD/0800/319/P.474/15.8.00, 2205 6885/BT)

Clr J Bull declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item, withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon. Mr Greatorex declared a pecuniary interest in this item, withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

419/00 MATTERS ARISING ON THE MINUTES

MINUTE 258/00

15. UNAUTHORISED DEMOLITION OF THE CRESSBROOK MILL, CRESSBROOK (P.10951/BT)

The Planning Officer reported that a letter had been received from Calver Parish Council stating that they strongly supported the prosecution by the Authority.

The Solicitor then reported that the summons had been served and that a hearing would be held on 7 December 2000. She stated that the maximum fine the Court could impose was £20,000 plus six months' imprisonment if the case was determined by the magistrates. AGENDA ITEM No. 4.1

PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY

SPECIAL POLICY COMMITTEE

22 DECEMBER 2000

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT NATIONAL PARK OFFICER – HEAD OF PLANNING

PART A

1. FULL APPLICATION – ERECTION OF 2 DWELLINGS AND EXTENSION TO HONEYPOT COTTAGE, WALLED GARDEN AND HONEYPOT COTTAGE, CASTLE HILL, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/0800/328, P.474, 21.8.00, 2205 6885/BT)

1.1 Some Members have received a letter of objection, a variant of which has been sent to the Authority. There is also a letter of support which again challenges interpretation of adopted policies. In addition the objectors' solicitors have requested the Government Office (GOEM) to call in the application. In view of the short time scale GOEM has issued an Article 14 Direction which prevents the Authority issuing a planning consent should it be minded to do so. However, the Direction does not prevent the Committee making a resolution on the application.

Letters from W W Forrester, Coombs Hay, 16 Burre Close, Bakewell, DE4 1GD dated 15 and 18 December 2000

2.1 Mr Forrester lives adjacent to the application site and states that he is writing on behalf of 2 of his neighbours.

2.2 The earlier letter is a notification of his request to speak at Committee when 2 questions will be asked:

1. Why is the application being granted when it has been refused on 2 earlier occasions given that there are no changes in the nature of the proposals?

2. As the development will not conserve or enhance the valued characteristics of the area, why is consent being granted?

2.3 The subsequent letter amplifies the first point emphasising that the reason for approving the application is not a valid consideration. It is stated that an approval will be an unfortunate precedent and furthermore the Committee will be acting beyond its powers. Consideration would have to be given to reviewing the decision in the courts.

Comment

2.4 On the first question the 1998 proposal was for 6, modified to 4 dwellings. It was withdrawn in the knowledge of objections. The earlier applications in 2000 were very similar to the present proposal. The current proposal is a resubmission which has been revised to comply with amendments put forward during the course of the last applications (planning and listed building). It is submitted with substantial supporting information, including a draft planning obligation which obliges profits from any sales are directed to approved developments at the Boarding House. 2.5 The Planning Control Committee was evenly divided on the current planning application but recommended approval on the casting vote of the Chair, the majority of Members feeling that the wider planning benefits of an approval outweighed the disbenefits. It was considered that an exception could be made to adopted policies because of the valued service the Boarding House provides, and as part of the wider role in the school community.

2.6 On the second question, it is preferable to have no development as the curtilage buildings are better conserved. An unkempt garden next to an important open space is a more desirable landscape feature. Nevertheless it is considered that the curtilage buildings are of modest architectural interest. No significant harm would arise if the current proposal was considered to be necessary when balanced against other factors. The same argument applies to the loss of open space.

e-mail letter from Clr John Youatt, The Square House, Middleton-by-Youlgreave, jrv241@aol.com dated 20 December 2000

2.7 Clr Youatt states that the officer view is that the case is not made for approval under HC1 and that there are no policy grounds to override that conclusion. He disagrees on both counts and complains that the Authority's case is fully presented and the school is referred to selectively. He feels the school's case should be presented in full as in the case of an appeal.

2.8 He requests that the following statement is presented to Members, it is summarised below:

1. The conclusion that an approval would not set a precedent,
2. It is strongly believed that GS2 is more inclusive than the officer interpretation.
3. There is surprise at the little weight given to the community and employment policies.
4. It is believed that on balance the benefit is to the listed building.

"1.13 Human rights

It might be a breach of human rights if this statement on behalf of the applicants were shortened or selectively quoted, given that the main body of the advice written by the LPA runs to over 7 pages and has frequently referred selectively to our points.

1.1 Departure from policy

In our judgement on a balanced assessment of all policies, the proposal is within policy. It might be construed to be against one or more individual policies. In fact I assess that it is against one policy only, C9 (b), in that the development alters part of the curtilage of the listed building. Even here the benefits to the listed building itself should be taken into account, C9 (a)

1.4 Appendix

I assume that the bulk of the appendix is an historic record of the site specifics on which the competent committee has ruled and that the remainder is policy matter that is dealt with now in this report.

1.6 No selection of policies in isolation

Very welcome, thank you. 1.7 Valued characteristics

Thank you for addressing this vital subject. We reconfirm our firm belief that LMS and its boarding house, and the communities and people that these inseparable parts of the business provide for, are indeed valued characteristics of this local planning area.

1.8 Not within GS2

As you know, I most strongly disagree with your officers on this point. Speaking as a user of Bakewell and as a representative of users of Bakewell, I believe GS2 does provide for Bakewell and its various functional hinterlands as a matter of:

- Plain English – there is nothing in the grammar of this policy that conditions the first part of the policy to the second part.
- Reasoned justification – there is nothing in the supporting text to subjugate the first half, Bakewell's general function, to the second half, the main parts of the so called 'Bakewell Project'. The project, (small p), was for Bakewell and its catchment area. It was not a self-contained set of proposals in time or in place and is still incomplete. In my reading, SP paras 2.22 and 2.23 make this point.
- Policy development – early drafts of GS2 were written before the specific elements were designed.
- Political development – parties to the drafting of GS2 accepted it in the wider context.
- Simple common sense – if you have a market town that serves a wider area, there are bound to be a series of unpredicted developments relating to that function.

I believe GS2 should be considered to be a strong presumption in favour, to be set against C9(b).

1.9 Not within HC1 (c)

Contrary to the text in your report, the money will in part maintain and enhance the listed building, a valued characteristic, as well as its current function.

1.10 SC1 and E1 not substantial

We welcome your acceptance that these two policies support the development. We remain astonished that you consider them to be insubstantial in the face of the number of parents, children and employees that are dependant on the School as a business and as a community facility.

1.11 Contrary to HC1

I conclude that the proposal is within HC1 and that even if not, there are at least four other substantial policies in its favour.

1.12 Probably no precedent

We welcome your advice that a precedent would not be set, and wholly agree.

1.14 Conclusion and recommendation

We hope that the Committee will accept the sub-committee's recommendation". Comment

2.9 The planning application has a substantial amount of supporting information including a challenge to the officer interpretation of policies which led to the earlier refusal. The report addressed these issues and summarised supporting information in accordance with standard practice. Again the officer interpretation of the Authority's policies is challenged and again with the exception of the Human Rights issue, the response has been prepared in consultation with the Policy Service Manager.

2.10 Comments on the statement are given below.

Human Rights: Out of necessity all planning reports summarise the views of applicants, consultees and third parties. The aim is always to ensure that there is a fair application of policies relevant to the key planning issues rather than summarising and commenting in proportion to the volume of information.

1.1 Departure. The proposal is contrary to C9 (b) in that part of the listed curtilage wall will be covered by 2 dwellings but the benefits are to alter and extend the Boarding House to maintain its present use. The approved changes to the Boarding House are acceptable but they are not desirable conservation of the historic building fabric. Furthermore English Heritage has published guidelines for enabling developments to conserve historic buildings. They allow for enabling development to secure the long-term future of the heritage asset rather than just maintaining its continued use. This proposal falls outside of these guidelines. For reasons explained in paragraph 1.9, 1.10 and 1.11 of the committee report, HC1 does not apply. Approval of the application represents a departure from adopted policies.

1.4 No comment.

1.6 No comment.

1.7 Valued characteristics: It is inferred that the Boarding House is inseparable from the school. No evidence has been given to suggest that the school will not survive any closure of the Boarding House. The argument is to preserve the Boarding House for its own sake rather than deciding on its relevance to the National Park as is explicit in the policies. As the Boarding House largely serves areas outside the park, its relevance as a valued characteristic within GS1 is open to question.

1.8 Policy GS2 essentially supports the principle of accepting developments that are related to Bakewell as part of its service function. Exceptional developments which support the town's service role could be accepted (eg funding the relocation of the livestock market through open market housing). However, the Boarding House is not related in its function to Bakewell or its service area. Instead, it serves a greater area largely beyond the school/Bakewell catchment area. There is no evidence that retention of the Boarding House is critical to the local economy (like the livestock market). Therefore GS2 does not apply here.

1.9 HC1 (c). The benefits of the sale of the building plots are divided between the County Council and to the school. The school requires an estimated £190,000 for the approved work at the boarding House. The estimated return on the sale of Honeypot Cottage and the building plots is £290,000-£385,000, ie £145,000 - £192,500 to the school. Therefore little if anything will be left for building maintenance. This argument does not support an exception under policy HC1(c). 1.10 No further comment (see p6 of PCC report).

1.11 The conclusion is not justified.

Conclusion

3.1 There is a policy basis for refusing the application and that is stated in the Planning Control Committee report (Appendix 2). The objector's original grounds for concern are summarised in Appendix 1 and addressed in that report. The subsequent objection fails to appreciate that exceptions can be made to policies if there are good planning reasons to do so.

3.2 There is no policy basis for approving the current proposal that is why an approval would be a departure from the Development Plan. However, it is unlikely to create a precedent because of the specific circumstances of the case. Consequently, it is not felt that the departure would be of more than local significance. If the Committee wish to approve the application it should be as an exception to policies. The grounds for approval would be because the development would enable the school to continue with a service which benefits the wider community and also has some benefits to the school and town. The Committee could resolve to approve the application but an approval notice could only be issued if the Article 14 notice was either withdrawn, or GOEM advised that it had no wish to call in the application.

Human Rights

3.3 Any human rights issues have been considered and addressed in this supplementary report.

List of Background Papers (not previously published)

English Heritage Policy Statement. Enabling Development and the Conservation of Heritage Assets 1999. If Members are minded to make an exception to policy in this case then consideration needs to be given to the precedent it may create and in practical terms there needs to be a legal agreement ensuring that funds raised from the sale of the site are spent on improvements to boarders accommodation and site access and parking. Any consent would also need to include conditions covering access, detailed design, landscaping and the withdrawal of permitted development rights.

**Human Rights**

Any human rights issues have been considered and addressed in this report.

**RECOMMENDATION:**

That the application be REFUSED on the following grounds:

1. Contrary to housing policy.
2. Undesirable changes to the character of listed curtilage features and the Bakewell Conservation Area.

**List of Background Papers** (not previously published)

Nil

5. **LISTED BUILDING CONSENT – ERECTION OF 2 DWELLINGS AND EXTENSION TO HONEYPOT COTTAGE, WALLED GARDEN & HONEYPOT COTTAGE, CASTLE HILL, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/0800/319, P.474, 15.8.00, 2205 6885/BT)**

This is the Listed Building Consent application for the development described in the previous item.

**Consultations**

Highway Authority – no objection in principle.

District Council – no objections subject to entry into a legal agreement which identifies a schedule of works required to the Boarding House and implementation of the works before occupation of the final house and to ensure all monies raised from the sale is used on works at the Boarding House.

Town Council – approve.

**Representations**

Two letters have been received from 3 local residents. Objections are on the following grounds:

1. The development spoils the character of the Honeypot Cottage and the Conservation Area.
2. Acceptance of this development on a protected environment will create a precedent for other developments.
3. Unsuitable road and site access.
4. Disturbance during the construction period.
5. Speculatory selling of assets to benefit the school but at the disadvantage of local residents and a protected environment. Main Policies

Relevant Structure Plan policies include: GS1, C3, C9, HC1, SC2, E1.

Relevant Local Plan (Provisional Adopted Version) policies include: LC4, LC5, LC6, LC7, LC17, LS4, LB1, LB2.

Human Rights

Any human rights issues have been considered and addressed in this report.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the application be REFUSED on the following grounds:

1. Undesirable changes to the character of listed curtilage features.

List of Background Papers (not previously published)

Nil PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

SCHEDULE OF SPEAKERS

MEETING: SPECIAL POLICY MEETING

DATE: 22 December 2000

| DATE LETTER RECEIVED | SPEAKERS NAME | AGENDA ITEM No | |----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| | 12/12/00 | Mr J Mills, Chair, Lady Manners School Governors (NB Checked with Agent, Chair is speaking instead of the Head 20/12/00) | 4.1 Page 1 | | 15/12/00 | Mr W Forrester, Objector | 4.1. Page 1 | | 15/12/00 | Clr Mrs Crowther | 4.1. Page 1 | | 20/12/00 | Mr A Etchells, Agent | 4.2 Page 10 | The National Park Officer, Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Bakewell, Derbys.

ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

Dear Sir

POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING FRIDAY 22 DECEMBER 2000 CASTLE HILL BOARDING HOUSE

Please note that the Chairman of the Governors at Lady Manners School, Mr. J. Mills, wishes to address the Committee briefly.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Knowles BA ARIBA

Copy to Client 15th December 2000

The Assistant National Park Officer, Secretary and Solicitor Peak District National Park Authority Aldern House Baslow Road Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1AE

Dear Sirs

I understand that a Planning Control Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday 22nd December at 10.30 am. I further understand that the Committee will be considering the planning application for the proposed erection of two dwellings and garages and extension to Honeypot Cottage at Castle Hill, Bakewell – Office Code Number NP/DDD.1299/581 and Office Code Number NP/DDD/1299/582.

I wish to make a short presentation to the meeting and understand I will be allowed three minutes for this purpose. I am hereby giving notice in writing, as requested.

During my three minutes, I will ask the following questions:-

1. Why is the application being granted when it has already been refused on two occasions, given that there are no fundamental changes to the nature of the proposals?

2. Given that this development will not conserve nor enhance the characteristics of the areas, why is consent now being granted?

Yours faithfully

W W Forrester Mr J Anfield\
Assistant National Park Officer - Head of Planning\
Peak District National Park Authority\
Aldern House\
Baslow Road\
Bakewell\
DE45 1AE

Dear Mr Anfield

2 Dwellings and alterations to Honey Pot Cottage, Burre Close, Castle Hill, Bakewell\
NP/DDD/0800/319 and 328

Thank you for your letter of 13th November 2000.

I confirm that I will be attending on 1st December 2000 to address the meeting and trust that you will take this as the requisite 48 hours notice.

Yours sincerely

Mary Sellers\
Headteacher 15th December 2000

The Assistant National Park Officer, Secretary and Solicitor Peak District National Park Authority Aldern House Baslow Road Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1AE

Dear Sirs

I understand that a Planning Control Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday 22nd December at 10.30 am. I further understand that the Committee will be considering the planning application for the proposed erection of two dwellings and garages and extension to Honeypot Cottage at Castle Hill, Bakewell – Office Code Number NP/DDD/1299/581 and Office Code Number NP/DDD/1299/582.

I wish to make a short presentation to the meeting and understand I will be allowed three minutes for this purpose. I am hereby giving notice in writing, as requested.

During my three minutes, I will ask the following questions:-

1. Why is the application being granted when it has already been refused on two occasions, given that there are no fundamental changes to the nature of the proposals?

2. Given that this development will not conserve nor enhance the characteristics of the areas, why is consent now being granted?

Yours faithfully

W W Forrester To: Adrian Brown For attention of: Fax number: Total number of pages (including this one):

Your reference: Our reference: From: Date:

PLEASE TELEPHONE AT ONCE IN CASE OF INCOMPLETE RECEIPT

Castle Hill - Policy Committee

1. I enclose copies of the 2 letters for the Director.

2. GOEM have made an Article 14 direction preventing the PDNPA from issuing an approved notice until further notice - i.e. until they have had time to consider the request for a call-in.

Member of the Association of National Park Authorities Holder of Council of Europe Diploma

National Park Officer: Christopher Harrison Assistant National Park Officers: Conservation: Ken Parker Planning: John Anfield Recreation: John Thompson Secretary & Solicitor: Kevin Francis Chief Finance Officer: Peter Swaby 18 December 2000

Dear Councillor Gaddum

Special Policy Committee Meeting 22 December 2000 Honeypot Cottage, Castle Hill, Bakewell

I understand that the Committee of which you are a member is to consider a full planning application for the erection of two dwellings and an extension to Honeypot Cottage, Castle Hill, Bakewell on 22 December. I live immediately adjacent to the proposed development site at 16 Burre Close, and am also writing on behalf of my neighbours, Mrs Hills and Mrs Primmer who also reside at Burre Close.

I am writing to urge you to vote against the proposal and the reasons for this are as follows:

i) From the Officers report to the Planning Control Committee on 27 October 2000 it is quite clear that there are no planning arguments in favour of this proposal. Any consent would be a departure from the development plan notwithstanding the planning authority’s duty to have regard to that plan under section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act.

ii) It would appear that members of the Planning Control Committee resolved to grant the application on the basis not of any valid planning argument, but purely because of the “service” which Lady Manners’ Boarding School is said to provide to the area. This is not in our view a valid planning consideration at all.

In the circumstances I must request that the committee turns down the application. Otherwise, an unfortunate precedent will be created and furthermore it appears to me that the committee will be acting beyond its powers. If the application is approved, I and my neighbours will have to consider an application to have the decision reviewed by the Courts.

Yours sincerely

W W Forrester Dear Mr Knowles

Proposed developments in the grounds of Lady Manners School Annex NP/DDD/0800/319 and 328

I refer to your letter of 25 September. It was not practical to report your application to the September meeting of the Planning Control Committee because reports have to be prepared at least 10 days in advance and it was held on 20 September, less than a month after your application had been registered. As for when officers work on an application, this is an internal matter but please bear in mind staff did take leave during this period and we have no choice in some of our priorities such as deadlines for appeal statements.

Please note that the earlier refused application was referred to my colleagues in our Policy Service Team to establish whether or not it represented a departure from the Development Plan. Then it was considered to represent a departure. In the light of your interpretation of the Authority's policies, I have requested further appraisal. My colleagues' comments will be incorporated into the Committee report.

I apologise for not contacting you earlier but as you are aware we do endeavour to return all calls within 24 hours and generally succeed.

Finally, in respect of the possible appeal, it is your judgement whether or not to proceed. Members are very conscientious and I do not expect this matter to effect the outcome of current applications.

Yours sincerely,

B Thompson Senior Planner Development Control 13th September 2000

APPLICATION NO. 1. NP/DDD/0800/328/C & 2. NP/DDD/0800/319/LC

Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE

Dear Sirs,

1. ERECTION OF TWO DWELLINGS AND EXTENSION TO HONEYPOT COTTAGE, WALLED GARDEN AND HONEYPOT COTTAGE, CASTLE HILL, BAKEWELL FOR LADY MANNERS BOARD OF GOVERNORS

2. ALTERATIONS TO LISTED BUILDING - ERECTION OF TWO DWELLINGS AND GARAGES AND EXTENSION TO HONEYPOT COTTAGE, WALLED GARDEN AND HONEYPOT COTTAGE, CASTLE HILL, BAKEWELL

I refer to the above applications which were considered at a meeting of the Northern Planning Sub-Committee, held on 12th September 2000, when it was resolved that the District Council raises no objections to both applications subject to a legal requirement being prepared to identify a schedule of works required at the boarding house and the implementation of all such works before occupation of the final house and to ensure all monies raised from the sale of the two dwellings be used on the works at the boarding house.

Yours faithfully,

A. R. YARWOOD Head Of Planning Services 11th September 2000

Peak Park Planning Department Aldern House Baslow Road Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1AE

For the attention of Mr John Davies – Head of Development Control

Dear Sirs

Planning Applications Ref Nos: [NPDDDO 800319 and NPDDDO 800328]

With regard to the above application submitted by Lady Manors School, I am writing once again to register my strong objection to the proposed development. My reasons for objection are as noted previously, and are:-

1 Conservation Area

The area in question is within the designated Bakewell conservation area. I believe it is important and right that the Peak District National Park Authority maintain and conserve the characteristics of the area. When purchasing property in the area, decisions are made secure in the knowledge that the characteristic and nature of the area will be protected and investment is made accordingly. I believe the proposed development would destroy the designation of the area but, more importantly, it would create precedent for development elsewhere which would be difficult to refuse.

2 Honeypot Cottage

Honeypot Cottage and the garden wall are curtilage structures and are prominent in the area. Any change would surely be deemed to be inappropriate.

3 Line of Site

The proposed development would alter the nature of the view to the detriment of myself and other householders within the vicinity. 4 **Access**

Access to the proposed development is likely to be dangerous and inadequate for both traffic and pedestrians.

5 **Construction Period**

There will be major disruption during the construction period and the quiet environment would be destroyed.

6 **Traffic Increase**

Burre Close is a quiet cul-de-sac with relatively little traffic. However, the configuration of the roadway is dangerous with a blind hill and corner - any increase in traffic can only lead to danger for all concerned.

7 **Reason for Development**

It is understood that the proceeds from any development would be used to upgrade the Boarding House. As I have said previously, I believe such funds should be raised by means other than the destruction of the local environment. It will also be setting a dangerous precedent and the reasons and motives for any development should not influence the final decision. Such decisions should surely be based upon the affect on the local environment and on the lives of the people living in the surrounding area.

For all the reasons outlined above in supporting the preservation of the tradition and the nature of the area, I oppose the application.

I would also point out that this is the third application for such development in the last 1½ years. The residents in the surrounding area are well aware that planning authority can very often be gained by continually applying for the same development. Surely, it should be made clear to the proposed developers that the volume of applications should have no effect on the basis upon which developments are considered.

Yours sincerely

W W Forrester Advert Placed in the Derbyshire Times W/C 20 Aug 2000

FaO: Natalie | TO: | BT | FILE: | P474 | |-----------|----------|-------|------| | FROM: | PAS | DATE: | 21-8-00 | | | | | | | PROPERTY: | Honey St Col. | | | | PARISH: | Bakewell | | | | PROPOSAL: | New Homes | | | | APP No: | 0500/319 | | |

SUMMARY OF ADVICE:

If design is as previous scheme, I have no objections. Notice of Planning Proposal

AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE

by The Board of Governors of Lady Manners School

for Erection of 2 dwellings and extension to Honeypot Cottage

at Walled Garden & Honeypot Cottage, Castle Hill, Bakewell

This site lies within the curtilage of Grade II Listed Buildings and within Bakewell Conservation Area

Ref. No. NPDDD0800319 Date 25/08/2000

A copy of the application and plans may be inspected during office hours for the next 21 days following the date of this notice at the National Park Authority Office.

A copy has also been sent to the District / Borough Council and Parish Council / Meeting for comment. If you wish to make any comments please write to the National Park Authority Office within that time. Please note that the Authority now permits members of the public and consultees to address its committees, including those which determine planning applications. Please contact this office if you require details.

National Park Officer, Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, BAKEWELL, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE

Tel. Bakewell 816200 The National Park Officer, Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Bakewell, Derbys.

Dear Sir,

2 PROPOSED NEW HOUSES AND GARAGES AND ALTERATIONS TO HONEY POT COTTAGE

BURRE CLOSE, CASTLE HILL, BAKEWELL.

On behalf of Lady Manners School, I am re-submitting a Listed Building Application for this project. The proposed scheme is as previously submitted and as subsequently revised to comply with the requirements of Derbyshire Dales District Council, County Highways, and yourself.

However, the supporting evidence is more extensive this time. It is set out in the enclosed letter from the Chairman of the Governors of Lady Manners School and the various appendices which accompany his letter. Appendix B (Section 106 undertaking) will be sent to you in the near future.

The archaeological survey of the site, commissioned by Lady Manners School, was submitted in the course of the previous application and showed nothing of significance on the application site.

I should be pleased to deal with any queries arising.

A list of submitted drawings is enclosed.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Knowles BA ARIBA

Copy to Client 2 PROPOSED HOUSES AND GARAGES AND ALTERATIONS TO HONEY POT COTTAGE

BURRE CLOSE, CASTLE HILL, BAKEWELL

DRAWINGS SUBMITTED WITH THIS LISTED BUILDING APPLICATION

3 COPIES OF -

| | Location Plan | Site Plan | Site sections | Site sections | Roof Plan | Floor Plans Plots 1 & 2 | Elevations | Elevations | Elevations | |---|---------------|-----------|---------------|---------------|-----------|--------------------------|------------|------------|------------| | 532/02A | Site Plan | Existing | 1/1250 scale | | 04A | Site sections | Existing | 1/200 | | 07C | Site sections | Proposed and Existing | 1/200 | | 18A | Roof Plan | Proposed | 1/200 | | 20 | Floor Plans Plots 1 & 2 | Proposed | 1/100 | | 21A | Elevations | Proposed | 1/100 | | 22A | Elevations | Proposed | 1/100 | | 23A | Elevations | Proposed | 1/100 |

HONEY POT COTTAGE

| | Floor Plans | Existing | 1/100 | |---|-------------|----------|-------| | 532/14 | Floor Plans | Existing | 1/100 | | 15 | Elevations | Existing | 1/100 | | 16B | Floor Plans | Proposed | 1/100 | | 17B | Elevations | Proposed | 1/100 |

Perspective view from south within grounds of Castle Hill Boarding House A4

Note to Planning Officer

If any of the drawings are to be displayed to the Committee may I suggest the following selection as a minimum:

| | Roof Plan | Section through site | Elevations | perspective view | |---|-----------|----------------------|------------|------------------| | 532/18A | Roof Plan | Section through site | Elevations | perspective view |

1/200 scale model available on request for Committee meetings approximate size 400 x 400 x 100mm (Please contact the Architect) 8th August 2000

Chairman of Planning Committee, Peak National Park Authority, Aldern House, Bakewell.

Dear Sir,

Planning Application, Castle Hill, Bakewell.

This letter is written on behalf of the Governors of Lady Manners School in support of a resubmission of our application for planning permission for the development of the disused kitchen garden at Castle Hill Boarding House. The application seeks permission for the building of two dwellings and alterations to Honeypot Cottage which adjoins the garden. The underlying reason for this application is to generate a source of capital for alterations to the listed building at Castle Hill, thereby securing the future of the buildings and the Lady Manners School state boarding facility which is housed there.

It seems to us that the Peak Park Authority refused permission for our previous application on policy rather than grounds specific to the Castle Hill site. Throughout the preliminary negotiations with your officers, we were dealing satisfactorily with site-specific issues on the assumption that the proposal was ultimately approvable. Thus we were surprised at the last minute reversal of that assumption and the change to a situation where it was necessary to establish grounds for an exception to policies.

We have taken advice on this point and conclude that our proposal is indeed within the policies of the National Park Authority if, as is stressed in paragraph 1.18 of the Structure Plan, a judgement is made on the balance of all relevant policies.

An analysis is enclosed of the grounds for refusal and the relevant policy issues, based on the advice we have been given. (Appendix 1)

As indicated above, the purpose of the development for which approval is sought is solely to generate funds to permit alterations which will enable the preservation, repair and enhancement of the listed building on this site as follows:-

1. Alterations to the existing vehicular access from Baslow Road. At present this has very poor sight lines such that it constitutes a severe hazard for traffic on Baslow Road and for vehicles exiting from the Boarding House. Alterations to the entrance have already been approved by the Peak Park Authority.

2. Alteration to and extension of former stable block, currently a garage, fuel store and boiler house, to provide additional sleeping accommodation for staff. These plans have already been approved by the Authority.

3. To permit necessary repairs to and restoration of the listed building and the separate boys' accommodation block which lies within the curtilage of the listed building.

- A report by quantity surveyors Darwent Shaw shows the cost of the changes to the entrance and of the alterations to the stable block to increase accommodation for boarders to be of the order of £190,000. There are other uncosted repairs and restorations to be carried out if funds permit. There is a presumption that Derbyshire County Council will require that up to 50% of the sale of any asset of a former County maintained school should be returned to the County. Thus the estimated proceeds of the sale of the land and cottage to which this application relates should be at least double the QS estimates. The Quantity Surveyors’ report and an estimated valuation of the cottage and garden with planning permission is enclosed. Appendix 2.

- To ensure a safe vehicular access and maintain the financial viability of the boarding facility at Castle Hill, alterations are necessary. The School has pursued all other sources of funding and found none other than the sale of building land. These points are elaborated in Appendix 3, which includes a statement by the school’s accountant.

- State Boarding is a valuable educational and social resource which is endorsed and supported by the current government – albeit not financially! Whilst there are 36 State Boarding Schools in England and Wales, Lady Manners School offers the only such facility within 50 miles of Bakewell. Appendix 4

- The Boarding House at Castle Hill provides valuable local employment, facilities for adult education, additional accommodation for the main school, a social and educational service which benefits many living in and around the Peak Park and which is of great benefit to Lady Manners School as a whole. Appendix 5.

- The socio-educational benefits for a relatively small number of youngsters must be added to the wider benefits for all pupils at Lady Manners School. Individual case studies are particularly poignant and illustrate clearly that State Boarding is certainly not elitist. These points are elaborated in information provided by the headteacher, Mary Sellers. Appendix 6 & Appendix 7.

- A legal undertaking by the School under section 106 of the act is enclosed, committing the use of the net proceeds of the sale of the property currently under consideration for the sole purpose of maintaining and enhancing the listed building and its environs. Appendix 8. The School Governors request that members of the Planning Committee should give most serious consideration to this application, as refusal will most certainly jeopardise the future of the state boarding facility at Castle Hill and lead to its ultimate closure. This will result in the loss of an amenity for the local community, loss of local employment, loss of a valuable resource and social asset for the school and loss of a valuable social asset for the wider community. We consider that, as custodians of the listed building at Castle Hill, we merit your support.

Sincerely

John Mills - Chairman of Governors, Lady Manners School. Points of relevance to this application are included in a series of appendices listed below:

Appendix 1 relates to planning policy issues

Appendix 2 shows quantity surveyor’s costings for items 1 & 2 above.

Appendix 3 is a brief outline of the financial status of the Boarding House, prepared by the School’s accountant.

Appendix 4 is a brief history of the origins of the Boarding House and its current function.

Appendix 5 lists the direct benefits that accrue to Bakewell and the Peak Park due to the Boarding House.

Appendix 6 is information from Mary Sellers, the headteacher of Lady Manners School indicating the educational and social benefits which the Boarding House confers upon both the boarders at Castle Hill and the 1500 members of the Lady Manners school population as a whole.

Appendix 7 contains case histories of several pupils at Castle Hill Boarding House. This information is sensitive and confidential, thus the details have been rendered anonymous.

Appendix 8 is a legal commitment to dedicate the net proceeds of the sale of any property to which this application relates solely to the conservation and enhancement of the listed building and its environs. Castle Hill APPENDIX 1.

Comments on the Refusal Notice dated 5/4/2000

A. Analysis of the reasons for refusal

Reason 1.

Firstly, GS2 is not limited to the Bakewell project nor to Bakewell itself. The first half of the policy is general to Bakewell as the main service town for the wider area such as the livestock market, shopping, services or school catchment areas. The second half, which is specific to some elements of the project, is additional to the first part. The proposal, as an integral part of the school and as a community facility, is therefore within GS2.

Secondly, HCI (c) does apply here. The development will enhance an area of derelict former garden and walls and, under the financial obligation that has been offered under section 106 of the Act, will enhance the main listed building and its settings and enable remedial works to the inappropriate 1960’s building. The proposal complies with HC1(c).

Thirdly, the approval is not ‘an exception to policies’ if the NPA had had regard to paragraph 1.18 of the Plan, which requires that all relevant policies be taken into account. As a matter of fact, not all of them were taken into account. As matter of judgement, we believe that had they been, it would have been appropriate to decide that the proposal is not a departure from policies. See section B, below.

Fourthly, it is surprising to see a claim that this will set a precedent for similar developments. The very next item on the same agenda allowed the demolition of a building of character in a conservation area on the grounds that the applicant couldn’t afford a conversion. At Calver Mill, new houses were approved to enable the Mill’s setting to be conserved – similar to the argument we are applying here. (And allegedly with no rigorous financial test - the capital generated in that case greatly exceeding the need, which should have been the test, which the school is applying most rigorously to its proposal). At Bakewell, open-market houses were allowed on the riverside to assist the funding of the livestock market and other social elements of the project.

Reason 2.

Firstly, this reason is self-contradictory. The development cannot be both ‘acceptable’ and ‘undesirable’.

Secondly, if the case on reason 1 above is correct, it is not ‘unnecessary’. It is for the NPA to say how the listed site would be saved if not by this route, so that the alternative route can be assessed by the NPA against the school’s proposal and other policy delivery. (See SC2 below.)

Thirdly, it is wrong or at least very sad if the presumption is that no development can of itself enhance the Park. Indeed, we think the NPA does look in other documents for good examples of modern design. We think this design will enhance the Park in its own right, thus fulfilling the first sentence of policy GS1, which was written for this type of positive change.

B. Policies not given sufficient weight

Having dealt with the grounds for refusal the NPA should check whether the decision, which was based primarily on the officer’s report, gave adequate weight to other policies that support approval. It seems to us that it didn’t. The following policies (and there may be others - we haven’t exhaustively checked the development plan) should be taken more explicitly into account:-

(i) Development of community services. - SC2(a). The proposal clearly includes the maintenance, continuation and enhancement of community services.

and SC2(b). It is not clear what would happen if the school use were to fall. We do not know of and the NPA has not said – if they thought about it at all – whether there is an alternative community user that would comply with and be able to afford to comply with SC2(b). If there isn’t, the commercial successor to the school use would result in an enforced departure from this policy that might well cause the NPA’s policies more harm than the harm that it alleges in the current decision would be caused by the approval of the school proposal.

(ii) Economic Development – jobs - E1. If the school use fell, there is no guarantee that the next user would be an employer “of a scale and type that is clearly intended to meet local needs”. This was a controversial and crucial policy that, we are told, the NPA successfully defended and is not to be treated lightly.

(iii) Conservation of listed buildings in appropriate uses – C9. This is a complex and sophisticated policy that allows for if not encourages the school’s use of and duty of care for the main listed building, which is the very purpose of the school’s proposal. We believe the proposal delivers the first part of this policy, C9(a). The second part allows within policy, not as an exception to policy, for beneficial change on listed buildings and sites. There is only one type of change that is specifically discouraged. Thus the school’s proposal is within this policy.

Conclusion

The School suggests that the ‘credibility of the policies’ is not at risk by approval of this proposal. The NPA’s credibility would be at risk, if the proposal were not assessed as above. We believe that the proposal is not only approvable within policy but should be approved on application of all the relevant policies. They are overwhelmingly in favour of this excellent example of the conservation and enhancement of a site and buildings and will keep them in community use. Costings Darwent Shaw Partnership, Chartered Quantity Surveyors, prepared Cost Plan 2 in December 1998, as follows:

Work to the Boarding House Work to the driveway etc.

£ 94,000 £ 34,000

£ 128,000

Updating to Dec. 2000 VAT Furniture & fittings, professional fees.

+9% = £ 140,000 +17.5% = £ 165,000 +15% = £ 190,000

The Proposed Development

An estimated guide price for the sale of Honeypot Cottage and the land with Planning and Listed Building Approvals is £ 290,000 to £ 385,000

(subject to infrastructure costs, planning conditions, legal considerations etc. This is not a valuation.)

or for Honeypot Cottage and the land without Planning approval is £ 100,000

Guide-price by Stephen Fanshawe FRICS (Chartered Surveyor) of Eadon Lockwood Riddle Residential CASTLE HILL - FUNDING OF PROPOSED CAPITAL WORKS

1. P Knowles has talked to the Peak Park in terms of £190,000 for the new access and accommodation adaptations.

2. Proceeds from the sale of developable land are required to finance this cost.

3. Funding is otherwise not available:

   - the current balance on the Boarding House account is only £60,000 which is the minimum considered necessary as either:
     - a contingency/working balance
     - a fund to meet closing down costs
   - for a number of years, the Boarding House has just about broken even at around the current level of 38/40.
   - the current level of fees is as much as the market will stand, and there is, therefore, no scope to generate additional income by increasing fees.
   - the School does not have statutory authority to use LMS grant to fund expenditure at the Boarding House.
   - the Foundation cannot legally be used for Boarding House purposes.
   - the chances of a successful capital grant bid (structural challenge or seed challenge) are extremely remote.
   - the School is not empowered to borrow.
   - consultants have advised that the circumstances at the Boarding House are not appropriate for a PFI scheme.

T P Hadfield 28.06.00 Financial Considerations

- For safety reasons, an improved access from Baslow Road is essential.

- To maintain financial viability, increased accommodation is required for the Boarding House. (This is partly to replace accommodation lost in addressing the additional requirements of the recent Children’s Act.)

- The demand for boarding places at Castle Hill varies from year to year. There may be excess demand for girls’ places, with surplus places for boys or vice-versa. Thus maintaining full capacity each year is not easy.

- Most of the costs are fixed and the break-even figure (38-40 boarders) is currently not far below full occupancy (44 boarders). Thus there is little scope for accumulating surpluses in “good” years to offset deficits in “bad” years. Additional accommodation would permit an increase in the safety margin above break-even.

- Without additional accommodation, the Boarding House faces imminent closure, as the current level of reserves is only sufficient to meet the costs of a phased closing down period. (Immediate closure would be detrimental to those boarders currently present). There would be additional follow-on redundancy costs.

- There is no funding for improvements or running costs that we have been able to identify as being available from central sources or the LEA or any other trust or foundation. The possibility of a Private Finance Initiative for these capital projects has been investigated by consultants Clarson-Goff who found it to be unsuitable.

Included below is a report from the School Accountant, showing the situation regarding possible sources of funding the alterations.

- ENC TPHadfield doc Costings Darwent Shaw Partnership, Chartered Quantity Surveyors, prepared Cost Plan 2 in December 1998, as follows:

* Work to the Boarding House: £94,000
* Work to the driveway etc.: £34,000

Total: £128,000

Updating to Dec. 2000:

- +9% = £140,000
- VAT +17.5% = £165,000
- Furniture & fittings, professional fees, +15% = £190,000

The Proposed Development

An estimated guide price for the sale of Honeypot Cottage and the land with Planning and Listed Building Approvals is £290,000 to £385,000

(subject to infrastructure costs, planning conditions, legal considerations etc. This is not a valuation.)

or for Honeypot Cottage and the land without Planning approval is £100,000

Guide-price by Stephen Fanshawe FRICS (Chartered Surveyor) of Eadon Lockwood Riddle Residential Planning Application for Castle Hill – Appendix 4

Lady Manners School and the Boarding House

Lady Manners School is a non-selective state comprehensive school, having Foundation School status, operating within the ambit of Derbyshire L.E.A.

The school is the sole provider of state secondary education for Bakewell and district.

Castle Hill Boarding House is a financially self-supporting adjunct to Lady Manners School, accommodating an average around 40 boarders of both sexes between 11 and 18 years of age.

Boarders are normally British nationals with relatives in the UK, with the exception of some European pupils on English language placements. Almost all have family (frequently grandparents) within 40 miles of Bakewell.

History

Lady Manners School, as a rural school, has a history of boarding going back into the 18th century.

The listed building at Castle Hill was acquired by DCC Education department in the 1950s as part of a National strategy to provide a state boarding facility for pupils whose home social circumstances were such that boarding was a necessary or desirable option. The addition of a separate boys’ block in the early sixties made it possible to accept girl boarders. At this time, many of the boarders were sponsored by the LEA on social grounds. Most others were children of forces personnel stationed abroad.

Current Role of the Boarding House

Changes in social policy on childcare in recent years have resulted in relatively few boarders coming via the Social Services route. Reduction in the number of overseas bases has greatly reduced the intake from families of Forces personnel.

Current intake is typically from three sources:

a) Children from families whose parents are stationed overseas by virtue of their employment. b) Children whose home circumstances are unstable for a variety of reasons eg. due to marital breakdown. c) Orphans sponsored by the School’s Campbell-Blair fund.

Castle Hill is emphatically not an elitist establishment. Boarders receive a free state education. Fees are charged only for the boarding and supervision.

Admission criteria are based on need, not ability. A significant number of boarders have statements of special educational need or require learning support. Potential boarders are carefully vetted to avoid the possibility of admission to Castle Hill being used to circumvent the School’s normal admission policy.

Many families need access to boarding education, for a variety of reasons, but cannot afford the cost of public school fees. Formerly there were many state boarding schools. Castle Hill is now the only such institution left in Derbyshire. The nearest alternative state boarding facilities are in mid-Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, North Wales and Loughborough.

Case histories in Appendix 7 illustrate the social and educational role of Castle Hill Boarding House. "There are still serious problems of accommodation for teaching. There has been substantial improvement and remodelling of the science teaching area and a new library and resources building since the previous inspection, and the plans then proposed have been completed. Accommodation for special educational needs is much improved since the last inspection and the learning support centre is a lively and pleasant learning environment. There have been new music practice rooms, a careers area, a remodelled food technology room and further provision for information technology. Further plans for increased classroom space, and improved sixth form area and sports facilities are under consideration by the governing body and the school's management. There remain, however, major problems of overcrowding and poor accommodation in some areas, for example, in arrangements for information and communications technology, art and textiles. The indoor facilities for physical education are poor, especially when there is bad weather or the space is used for other purposes; and this contrasts with the excellent playing field facilities. Most subjects are affected by the limitations in accommodation and by the difficulty in identifying subject bases as centres for teaching and resources."

"Boarding Provision"

256 The Castle Hill Boarding House is a happy, cohesive and well-run community. It is producing self-confident and civilised young people. The excellent atmosphere and ethos originate from a great deal of hard work skilfully executed by a thoughtful and committed boarding staff.

262 Taken overall the provision for boarding at Lady Manners School is one where pupils receive pastoral care of a very high standard which promotes the development of well rounded and thoughtful individuals ready to go out into the world both to live good quality lives of their own and enabled to enrich those of others."

257 All the staff offer effective support and advice. The pupils universally feel that there is a good choice of sympathetic trustworthy people who are always ready to advise and help. Academic progress is carefully watched by the four teachers who work in conjunction with their colleagues tutoring at the main school. The setting and completion of homework are closely checked. Homework time for younger pupils is supervised and structured by teaching staff: more senior pupils are progressively encouraged to work in their own areas. The pupils have access to the expertise of the teacher supervising, a small but effective reference library and word processing facilities.

258 Personal development of pupils is seen as an important area. They are encouraged to take increasing responsibility for organising their own lives as they mature. Sixth form pupils not only organise their work but also may have interesting weekend jobs, drive cars responsibly and belong to local organisations such as amateur dramatics. All members of the House are encouraged to be both critical and tolerant. Input is welcomed in the planning of activities, such as those that occur at weekends. These activities provide a very wide range of interesting opportunities extending from horse riding and go-karting to long walks and shopping in towns. There is a firm and fair code of behaviour, which is accepted by the pupils and consistently applied. The staff are always happy to explain and discuss with pupils why they can or cannot do things. The buildings are set in spacious grounds allowing pupils to relax and to practise ball games. Externally both buildings are in need of repairs to their renderings and some of the windows in the boys' block need their woodwork replacing. Internally the rooms are of a good size and mostly light and airy. They never house more than four pupils and most are twos or threes. Some rooms would benefit from redecoration, but pupils are allowed to personalise their own areas with posters. Furnishings are appropriate and well maintained, although some stairways and corridors would benefit from more pictures. Staff and pupils usually ensure that the rooms, which are checked and cleaned daily, are kept neat but not slavishly tidy. The washing and toilet facilities for both sexes are adequate. Common rooms include a TV/video room for girls, one for boys and one for both sexes. There is a large games room which provides facilities for pool and table tennis, a music practice room and a computer room with E-Mail facilities. The library contains a small, but useful, collection of reference books and some entertainment videos; however, there are rather few novels and works of fiction. Everything is kept scrupulously clean by the domestic staff and any kind of graffiti or vandalism is extremely rare.

Effective measures are taken to promote the health, safety and general well being of the pupils. Food is hygienically stored and carefully prepared to present an attractive balanced diet with a volume suitable for teenagers. Laundry is very regular and the pupils' clothes look fresh and clean. There are well-organised and controlled first aid arrangements with qualified staff. Medical and dental visits are well catered for and all is carefully recorded. There are regular fire practices and testing for the alarms and emergency lighting. All electrical equipment, both public and private, is regularly examined by an electrician. All adults, who have significant contact with boarders, are checked in accordance with appropriate regulations. Staff are trained in and aware of child protection procedures and counselling; the pupils also have well advertised access to an independent listener. There are four pupil telephones, but the privacy of these is wholly inadequate. At least two staff are always on duty day and night and there are proper procedures for tracking the whereabouts of pupils when they are away from Castle Hill. Appropriate measures encourage both mixing and separation of the sexes. There are good relationships with the social services, who have been invited in to inspect.

Since the last inspection by OFSTED, the good practices and provision for boarding have been further extended. More opportunities for pupils to organise themselves and to develop independently have been provided, such as an increased input into the planning of events and the running of the House. Every encouragement is given to plan free time activities, to join in with local groups and to make use of local facilities. Attention has been focussed onto the provision of a carefully graded increase in responsibilities for their own affairs as they move up the school. There are now ten computers available; pupils each have an E-mail address and CD ROM facilities are planned for the near future. The reference section of the library has been upgraded and expanded. Whilst the telephones still lack privacy there are now four of them. Planning Application for Castle Hill – Appendix 5.

Benefits to Bakewell and the Local Community.

1. Employment

The Boarding House employs 3 full time and 16 part-time staff, including educational, care work and domestic staff (details below)

2. Community use

The Boarding House provides facilities during the day for a variety of adult education and training activities. This includes provision of IT facilities where appropriate. (details below). On completion of the improvements to access and parking, the Boarding House could be more actively promoted for community use.

3. School use

Lady Manners School makes use of facilities at Castle Hill routinely to provide additional accommodation to supplement the overcrowded buildings on the main school site. (details below)

4. Social benefits

Castle Hill Boarding House provides a valuable service for families which, for a variety of reasons, need access to a state boarding facility in this part of the country. No other such facility exists within a 50 mile radius of Bakewell. Whilst not specific to Bakewell or even the Peak Park, it is a necessary social service for benefit of the wider community of the region. (Appendix 4 and Appendix 7 expand and illustrate this point)

5. Educational benefits

For many boarders who have had an unsettled and disrupted early life, Castle Hill and Lady Manners School together offer a stable social environment combined with the opportunity to achieve their full educational potential.

The boarders, several of whom are of mixed race origin, introduce a welcome element of ethnic, racial and cultural diversity into the predominantly rural English school population at Lady Manners School.

The presence, from time to time, of French and German pupil boarders is also of benefit to the whole school population.

(The statement in Appendix 6 from the headteacher, Miss Sellers, expands the social and educational benefits for both boarders and other pupils).

ENC. J Duckham, Head of Boarding doc. Castle Hill Boarding House

Employment of staff

1 Head of Boarding 2 Full-time Care Workers 4 Part-time Care Workers 3 Academic tutors 3 Part-time Cooks 3 Part-time Cleaner 1 Part-time Kitchen Assistant 1 Part-time Laundress 1 Part-time Caretaker

Community Use

- E.D.I.T (I.T training agency for the disabled and for women in rural communities) 4 full-days - Monday to Thursday.
- Life drawing class (self programming) Friday afternoons.
- Yoga Class (Adult Ed) Thursday Morning.
- Art Class (Landscape) Wednesday Morning.
- University of the 3rd Age (self programming) Tuesday Mornings - monthly.
- Four new Adult Ed classes for September 2000
- Training courses for national agencies

School Use

- School appeals
- G.C.S.E language orals (mock and actual)
- “A” level language orals (mock and actual)
- Staff development training
- Departmental meetings
- Learning support training

Boarders supported by Social Services

B - Complicated family history but chose to board rather than be fostered. H - receives help with fees due to family circumstances K - has boarded since she was 10 (attending a local primary school until she could go to Lady Manners). Receives help with fees from Social Services as her parents have autistic twin boys to support and Castle Hill was seen as a stable environment that would allow to flourish. Now at University studying.

Boarders supported by the Campbell - Blair Trust (Assistance for children after the death of one or both parents.)

P - Death of mother J - Death of mother A - Death of mother B - Death of mother

Percentage of Boarders receiving Learning Support 18% CASE STUDIES

Demonstrating the precise educational benefits for each case is next to impossible - you would need to measure attainment at entry and subsequently show that the difference was due to boarding and not a hundred and one other factors. The educational value for these youngsters is consistently that of getting - perhaps for the first time:

- a consistent home life - healthy food, clean and ironed clothing, leisure, outings, fun, a bit of a laugh.
- consistent discipline which enables them to structure their lives - the idea that events have causes and effects is often missing!
- planning ahead - being in an environment where other youngsters and the adults around have high expectations for their future.
- support in doing homework - a warm, quiet room to work in, support from a caring adult, a set time to start and finish.

All this may sound obvious, but I know that for at least five of the youngsters, these things have only all happened at the same time and consistently at Castle Hill.

The educational benefit is probably easiest to demonstrate in respect of students coming to the end of their school careers, so I have added a couple of sentences to some of the case studies to make this impact more explicit (Appendix 7).

WIDER BENEFITS

The wider socio-educational benefits are around these factors:

- many students at Lady Manners School lead a rural existence. Boarders are typically more worldly wise and even in small numbers, can inject wider experience.
- of the very few children in Lady Manners School from ethnic minorities, most have been students at Castle Hill. Even in a small way, this does broaden the ethnic mix and supports multicultural education in the curriculum.
- boarding assists the school in its monitoring and evaluation. Since the school is in itself 'in loco parentis' with regard to homework etc, we are aware of work set for students and the total impact of the school experience.
- Lady Manners School is very overcrowded. (See Appendix 4 Ofsted para 85). The Boarding House is used for storage, overflow classes, meetings, oral examinations etc. If this were not available, governors might have to consider reducing the numbers on roll.

STATE BOARDING

Attached are two forewords by DfEE Ministers in support of state boarding.

- There are now only about 35 state boarding schools in the country as opposed to 70 before 1993. The reduction in supply to match the reduction in demand has taken place and the remaining schools are needed. The STABIS map - we are school 6 - shows the region we serve. Regions do matter, not just in order to pick up local social cases such as those Jon has listed but, because families, particularly those with no previous experience of boarding want to board their children near where there are other family members to support in case of emergency. The Peak Park is convenient for many Northern conurbations as we well know. You may be able to make a case for attracting visitors in this way ….

- Boarding is more effective than residential care and a more realistic option than fostering or adoption for teenagers in the care of the local authority (or 'looked after children' - see Child A).

- Boarding is still needed by MoD-employees and expatriates. State boarding is very cost effective as compared to private boarding.

- STABIS research indicates that boarding houses below 35 are not viable. 45-50 is marginal in their view. Our break even figure thus tallies with their national view.

- They also comment on the social mix (see above).

- STABIS confirms that there is no external support for capital expenditure for state boarding other than the income from fees or the sale of assets. Welcome to the Parents' Guide to Maintained Boarding Schools. If you are reading this booklet for the first time, it is possible that you will not have heard of maintained or, as they are sometimes called, state boarding schools. It is a common myth that boarding is not available in the maintained sector. I am pleased to say that it is. Because the maintained sector only charge boarding fees, tuition is free. It is an attractive and affordable option.

I hope this Guide will help you to find a school which is right for your child. Modern boarding has a great deal to offer. Teams of dedicated boarding house staff provide welfare and pastoral support. They are committed to making a home-from-home environment which is also safe, secure and comfortable for the boarders in their care.

You will, of course, only get a real feel for the school(s) that interest you by visiting them in person. Please do not hesitate to contact them to arrange a visit. I am confident that you will be warmly welcomed.

Estelle Morris MP, Minister for School Standards About maintained boarding schools

What are maintained boarding schools? They are maintained (not independent) schools which take boarders as well as day pupils. Some schools are all-ability comprehensive schools, others are grammar. Some are single sex, others are mixed. All pupils follow the National Curriculum and take the same examinations as they would at a local school. Education at the schools is free. Parents only pay for the boarding. There are also details of two further education colleges in this guide.

What are the advantages of boarding at a maintained school? Parents choose maintained boarding schools because

- modern boarding is a flexible option - many schools offer weekly as well as termly boarding
- they have plenty of home comforts and offer a warm welcome
- they help children to become more confident and independent
- boarders have the best of both worlds - a ready made circle of friends in their boarding house and the chance to mix with local children
- of their academic reputation
- they provide continuity, for example for children whose parents' work involves frequent changes of location or where parents work long hours
- they offer a wide range of evening and weekend activities
- it is affordable. You pay fees for the boarding, but the education is free. CHILD A Child A came to us initially as a short term placement to allow his foster carers to take a holiday. He enjoyed it so much he asked his social worker if he could return as a permanent boarder but staying at his foster parents during school holidays and occasional weekends. He has a complicated background and family history. His mother walked out of the family home and left Child A and his two brothers with his step father. Eventually Child A and his two brothers were placed in care at various locations throughout Derbyshire. He still has regular contact with his father. His older brother died last year of a drugs overdose and his younger brother attends a special school due to behavioural problems. Despite this troubled beginning Child A has developed into a lively, friendly and helpful young man who has chosen to stay at Castle Hill next year whilst attending High Peak College. He has gained a place on a catering course and is extremely focused on becoming a chef. He will be the first to take advantage of our new policy of allowing 16+ students to follow vocational courses at local colleges of FE but still remain at Castle Hill as a boarder. Staff remarked on the change in Child A as soon as he went into boarding. The statistics for 'looked after' children in terms of progression and attainment make sorry reading and Child A was at risk of falling into his pattern. The stability and atmosphere at Castle Hill, where he is amongst children of his own age with high expectations and in the care of experience professionals has made all the difference. We now expect him to go on to make a success of his chosen career.

CHILD B Before Castle Hill, Child B had spent much of his life helping his mother to look after his elderly father who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Child B's mother works permanent nights in an old peoples' home so he did most things for his father. After his father stopped recognising both Child B and his mum (on one occasion he attempted to throw them both out of the house as he thought they were burglars) he was transferred to special accommodation. Child B then came to Castle Hill as a Year 7 boarder as mum could no longer leave him at home and go to work. Throughout his first year with us we have had to build up his confidence and self esteem and begin to develop his personal and social skills. There were already problems before he arrived which meant we had to deal with a number of issues - notably around personal hygiene (he would soil himself at regular intervals although we now appear to have stopped this) and the distress he suffers through not being allowed contact with his father.

CHILDREN C AND D The brothers came to Castle Hill after their mother died suddenly and their step father left them and went to work abroad. Their immediate family picked up the pieces and worked hard to sort out their lives. They had also been involved in a gang fight in their home city of Manchester and were facing court appearances. The family thought it vital they were removed from this environment and given a period of stability and exposure to more positive role models. Despite initial fears by their family that they may attempt to run back to Manchester they settled in quickly and began to take an active role in school life. Both the boys have represented the school at rugby and athletics and managed to avoid any custodial sentence as punishment for their misdemeanours. Child C, the elder brother, now wishes to return to Lady Manners for Sixth Form and Child D continues to make good progress. On admission, neither boy expected to take his education further than compulsory schooling. Child C will stay with us next year, even if he does not make the grade for Sixth Form and we will support him through Further Education. Child D, who will have been with us for two years when he completes Year 11, has every chance of going on to A levels. Their family are convinced that the professional care at Castle Hill has made that difference. CHILD J Child J's family were living in Germany where Mr J was a helicopter pilot in the army. Mrs J then developed MS and with Child J's brother's autism she found it increasingly difficult to cope with two demanding children. Child J then came to Castle Hill where despite initial problems associated with living away from home he settled in well. Child J also receives help from special needs where he continues to make progress.

FURTHER NOTE Out of total boarding population of 38 there are 8 boarders who receive help from Learning Support. This represents 21% of the boarding population. CERTIFICATE TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING/CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT

Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Certificate under Section 10 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

A I certify that:-

on the day 21 days before the date of the accompanying application/appeal\* nobody, except the applicant/appellant\*, was the owner (a) of any part of the land to which the application/appeal\* relates.

Signed \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date 11/8/00

\*On behalf of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

or B I certify that:-

I have/ The applicant has given the requisite notice to everyone else who, on the day 21 days before the date of the application/appeal\*, was the owner (a) of any part of the land to which the application/appeal\* relates, as listed below.

| Owner's name | Address at which notice was served | Date on which notice was served | |--------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------| | | | |

Signed \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\*On behalf of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

or C I certify that:

I/ The applicant/ The appellant\* cannot issue a Certificate A or B in respect of the accompanying application/appeal\*.

I have/ The applicant has/ The appellant has\* given the requisite notice to the persons specified below, being persons who on the day 21 days before the date of the application/ appeal\*, were owners (a) of any part of the land to which the application/ appeal relates

| Owner's (a) Name | Address at which notice was served | |------------------|-----------------------------------| | | |

Date on which notice was served 15 AUG 2000

ALLOTTED GROUP OFFICER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REPLY P/L ALLOCATION

Continued over I have/ The applicant has/ The appellant has\* taken all reasonable steps open to me/him/her\* to find out the names and addresses of the other owners (a) of the land, or part of it, but have/ has not been able to do so. These steps were as follows:-

(b) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

______________________________________________________________________

Notice of the application/ appeal\*, as attached to this Certificate, has been published

in the (c) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ on (d) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Signed \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\*On behalf of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

or D I certify that:-

I/The applicant/The appellant\* cannot issue a Certificate A in respect of the accompanying application/appeal\*.

I/The applicant/The appellant\* have/has\* taken all reasonable steps open to me/him/her\* to find out the names and addresses of everyone else who, on the day 21 days before the date of the application/appeal\*, was the owner (a) of any part of the land to which the application/appeal\* relates, but have/has\* been unable to do so. These steps were as follows:-

(b) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

______________________________________________________________________

Notice of the application/appeal\*, as attached to this certificate, has been published in the

(c) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ on (d) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Signed \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\*On behalf of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

- Delete as appropriate

(a) 'owner' means a person having a freehold interest or a leasehold interest the unexpired of which is not less than 7 years, or, in the case of development consisting of the winning and working of minerals, a person entitled to an interest in a mineral in the land (other than oil, gas, coal, gold or silver). (b) description of steps taken (c) name of newspaper circulating in the area where the land is situated (d) date of publication (which must not be earlier than the day 21 days before the date of the application or appeal) PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990

Before completing this form, you are advised to read the notes overleaf. Three copies of this form, one completed copy of the pink Section 10 Certificate and three copies of all plans as specified should be submitted.

1 (a) APPLICANT Name: THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF LADY MANNERS SCHOOL Address: SHOTTS LANE, BAKEWELL Postcode: DE45 1JA Telephone No.: ..........................................................

1 (b) AGENT (if any) Name: Peter Knowles Architect Address: YOULGRAVE, near Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1UR Tel. & fax: 01629 636362

2. Address and/or location of building. WALLED GARDEN & HONEYHOT COTTAGE CASTLE HILL, BAKEWELL

3. Particulars of applicant's interest in the land (eg, owner, lessee, prospective purchaser, etc) OWNER

4. Describe the proposed works. CONSTRUCTION OF 2 DWELLINGS IN WALLED GARDEN, EXTENSION OF HONEYHOT COTTAGE

5. Are any alterations to be made to the exterior of the existing building(s)? If yes, state clearly what these alterations are and indicate them clearly on the plans. SINGLE-STOREY GARAGE, LOUNGE, PORCH

6. If the proposal involves external alterations or extensions to a Listed Building: What materials and colours are as existing and as proposed: (If more than one material, this should be stated) (i) External walls (ii) Roof covering (iii) Rainwater goods and external plumbing (iv) Doors and windows

NATURAL STONE BLUE SLATES METAL TIMBER

PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 15 AUG 2000 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REPLY FILE ALLOCATION: Confidential 7. Are any alterations to be made to the interior of the existing building(s)? If yes, state clearly what these alterations are and indicate them clearly on the plans.

MINOR ALTERATIONS (SEE PLAN)

8. Does the proposal involve any form of demolition? If yes, state the reasons for demolition and indicate the building(s) clearly on the plans.

DEMOLITION OF REDBRICK LEAN TO SHED

9. Where demolition is involved, has any planning application(s) been submitted in respect of redevelopment of the site. If yes, state when and quote the application code number(s) (if known).

Signed: [Signature] Name in Block Capitals: [Name] On behalf of: [Organization] Date: [Date]

NOTES FOR LISTED BUILDING APPLICATIONS

Applications should be made to the Peak District National Park Authority for consent to demolish, extend or alter the outside or inside of any "listed building", i.e. a building of special architectural or historic interest included on a statutory list issued by the Secretary of State. It is an offence to alter, extend or demolish a listed building without the consent of the Authority or the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Authority must advertise the application and determine it or refer it to the Secretary of State within 2 months, or within such a period as may be agreed in writing between the applicant and the Authority (except where the applicant has already given notice of appeal to the Secretary of State).

All applications to demolish listed buildings or to alter or extend Grade I and Grade II\* listed buildings have to be referred to national amenity bodies and any recommendation by the Authority to grant consent has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State.

Applicants should complete all parts of the form, as appropriate, and forward the following documents to the Peak District National Park Authority, Development Control Group, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE.

All applications should contain: 3 copies of this form together with the completed certificate (usually A or B).

All applications to alter/erect buildings should contain 3 copies of scale drawings showing the following:

1. Existing plans and elevations drawn to scale of 1:50 or 1:100.
2. Proposed plans and elevations drawn to 1:50 or 1:100.
3. 1:500 block plan of site as existing and proposed showing site levels, if appropriate.
4. Site plan to scale of not less than 1:2,500 with the application site marked in red and any other land in the applicant's ownership/control marked in blue. view from south within grounds of Castle Hill Boarding House. Honeypot Cottage on the left